coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1959, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. They represent their minor daughter, Sz.K. before the Court.  Sz.K. was born in 1985.
5.  In 1986 Sz.K. suffered paralysis as a consequence of a compulsory polio inoculation. In 1987 the applicants, as her representatives, brought an action against the Hungarian State claiming compensation and a monthly allowance. The parties reached a friendly settlement. On the applicants' request, in 1991 the compensation and the allowance were raised. In 1993 the Supreme Court partly accepted their claim for the value of a special car.
6.  On 26 November 1993 the applicants brought an action before the Fejér County Regional Court, sitting as a first instance court, claiming a raise in the monthly allowance as a result of inflation and the high cost of schooling.
7.  Following the court's order, on 27 June 1994 an expert submitted an opinion on the matter.
8.  On 7 January 1995 the applicants modified their action.
9.  On 10 February 1995 the Regional Court partly granted the applicants' claims.
10.  Upon the applicants' appeal, on 25 January 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 June 1997 the expert submitted another opinion. On 8 August 1997 the applicants clarified their claims about inflation.
12.  On 19 September 1997 the Regional Court partly accepted the applicants' claims.
13.  On 12 October 1997 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court for the full claim.
14.  On 22 July 1998 the applicants requested the court to deliver a judgment, and modified their claims in view of the lapse of time since their appeal had been lodged.
15.  On 9 January 2000 the applicants again requested the court to deliver a judgment and modified their claims, given the time lag.
16.  On 3 February and 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court held hearings. In a judgment of 6 April 2000, the Supreme Court partly modified the first-instance decision.
17.  On the applicants' petition for review, on 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench increased the award.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Łódź, Poland.
5.  On 4 November 1993 the applicant lodged with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action against the State Treasury – the Zgierz Hospital. She claimed compensation and a monthly pension for damage she had sustained as a result of a medical treatment at the Zgierz Hospital.
6.  On 5 November 1993 the court exempted the applicant from the court‑fees.
7.  On 20 March 1995 the trial court held the first hearing.
8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 12 June and 13 November 1995.
9.  On 27 November 1995 the Łódź Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's action. The trial court found no fault on the part of the doctors concerned and accordingly dismissed the liability of the State Treasury for the damage.
10.  The applicant appealed against this judgment.
11.  On 28 February 1996 the Lodz Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
12.  The trial court held the first hearing on 2 October 1996.
13.  At the subsequent hearings which were held on 29 August and 12 November 1997 the trial court ordered an expert opinion and heard an expert witness.
14.  At the hearing held on 23 January 1998 the defendant asked the court to prepare another expert opinion.
15.  Between 24 January 1998 and 18 January 1999 no hearings were held.
16.  Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court held six hearings and on 22 July 1999 it gave judgment. The trial court again dismissed the action.
17.  The applicant appealed against the judgment.
18.  The Łódź Court of Appeal held five hearings and on 9 October 2001 it gave judgment. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal and awarded the applicant PLN 4,000 in compensation. The court found, inter alia, that the doctors had failed to act diligently; consequently, the State Treasury was liable for the damage sustained by the applicant.
19.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
20.  On 29 October 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) rejected her cassation appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Góra Kalwaria, Poland.
5.  On 16 December 1987 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of matrimonial property.
6.  On 12 March 1993 the Warsaw District Court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe).
7.  Prior to 1 May 1993 the trial court held 20 hearings and obtained four expert opinions.
8.  The court scheduled further hearings for 28 April 1995 and 26 May 1995 but the applicant due to her sick leave failed to appear. The hearings listed for 14 February 1996, 19 February 1997 and 16 May 1997 were adjourned.
9.  On 18 July 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the parties. A hearing listed for 1 August 1997 was cancelled.
10.  The applicant complained to the President of the District Court alleging inactivity on the part of that court in handling her case. In a reply of 9 February 1998 the President informed her that the next hearing was scheduled for 29 April 1998. However, that hearing was adjourned as the defendant and his counsel had not been present. They had not been served with the summons. The next hearing was held on 19 May 1998.
11.  On 27 May 1998 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision (postanowienie końcowe). The applicant appealed.
12.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 1 April, 20 July, 30 September, 24 November and 9 December 1999. The applicant was not present at any of the hearings despite being properly summoned.
13.  On 4 January 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a final decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.
5. On 30 May 1994 the Puławy District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) detained the applicant on remand on suspicion of his having committed fraud.
6.  The Puławy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) upheld that decision on 10 June 1994.
7.  Subsequently the applicant's detention was prolonged several times. He unsuccessfully appealed against those decisions.
8.  On 3 January 1995 the Puławy District Court convicted the applicant of fraud.
9.  On 28 April 1995 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed that judgment and remitted the case.
10.  The applicant remained in detention throughout the subsequent proceedings.
11.  On 1 September 1995 the Puławy District Court upheld its original judgment.
12.  Following the applicant's further appeals, that conviction was eventually quashed by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 25 April 1996.
13.  On 7 April 1997 the applicant filed an application for compensation for wrongful conviction and unjustified detention with the Lublin Regional Court.
14.  On 16 February 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) referred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court.
15.  The applicant repeatedly asked both courts to fix a date for a hearing. On March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that, due to the heavy case-load and a shortage of staff in the court, it was not possible to accelerate the proceedings.
16.  The first hearing on the merits was held on 2 December 2002. The court then adjourned the proceedings sine die.
17.  On 23 June 2003 the court held a hearing.
18.  The proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1939 respectively and live in Szabadbattyán, Hungary.
5.  In 1991 the applicants bought a flat from A.B. In the contract of sale A.B. agreed that the sum of 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) would be paid by the purchasers at a later date. However, the applicants refused to pay the amount, claiming that the house had turned out to be in a worse condition than they had thought at the time of the purchase and, therefore, its value was less than that agreed in the contract.
6.  Consequently, on 13 December 1992 A.B. brought an action against the applicants before the Székesfehérvár District Court for the payment of the outstanding amount, plus interest.
7.  On 22 June 1993 the District Court heard the plaintiff, whereas the applicants' lawyer failed to appear.
8.  At the hearing on 16 December 1993 the plaintiff refused to give statements in the absence of her counsel. The District Court therefore ordered the lawyer to justify his absence. On 24 January 1994 the plaintiff appointed a new legal representative.
9.  At the hearing on 8 March 1994 the plaintiff and her legal representative failed to appear. Consequently, the court stayed the proceedings. On 8 September 1994 the plaintiff requested that the case be continued.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 5 December 1994 and 29 March 1995 the District Court requested further documents from the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted them on 27 March and 4 May 1995, respectively.
11.  A hearing scheduled for 22 June 1995 was postponed on the parties' request.
12.  On 10 October and 5 December 1995 the court heard the parties and, on the latter date, witnesses as well.
13.  As the parties failed to appear at the hearing on 20 February 1996, while trying to settle the case, the District Court stayed the proceedings.
14.  Having failed to settle the case, the parties requested that the proceedings be continued. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court postponed the hearing that had been scheduled for 27 June 1996, as a witness failed to appear. At the hearing on 29 October 1996 the witness, who had repeatedly failed to be present, was fined. The applicants requested that a real-estate expert be appointed in the case. They deposited the expert's costs on 3 December 1996. Consequently, on 16 December 1996 the District Court appointed an expert.
15.  Following an on-site inspection of 1 March 1997, on 28 March 1997 the expert submitted his opinion.
16.  In a judgment on 22 October 1997, the District Court ordered the applicants to pay the plaintiff HUF 850,000, plus interest. The court relied on the expert's opinion and testimonies given by the parties and several witnesses.
17.  On the applicants' appeal, on 8 December 1997 the Fejér County Regional Court partially modified the first-instance judgment and reduced the court fees.
18.  The applicants' petition for review of 21 September 1998 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 May 2000, the final judgment having been delivered in accordance with the law.
19.  The applicants were represented by a lawyer of their choice throughout the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warszawa.
5.  On 15 October 1993 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the heirs to the applicant late mother's estate were the applicant, her father, and her sister. The estate consisted of a house and a plot of land located in Warsaw.
6.  On 14 November 1994 the applicant's sister (“the petitioner”) instituted non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) in which she requested that the co-ownership of the house and the land be dissolved.
7.  On 22 March 1995 the court held the first hearing.
8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 1 February, 7 March and 15 October 1996.
9.  On 6 January 1997 the court, sitting in camera, decided to obtain an expert opinion. On 15 February 1997 an expert prepared the opinion. On 21 February 1997 the District Court, sitting in camera, gave a decision regarding the fee for the expert.
10.  Between 16 October 1996 and 28 October 1997 no hearings were held.
11.  The hearings scheduled for 29 October and 16 December 1997 were adjourned because of the absence of the petitioner.
12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 4 February, 19 June and 31 July 1998.
13.  On 22 October 1998 the court ordered a second expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 20 January 1999.
14.  Between 1 August 1998 and 15 April 1999 no hearings were held.
15.  Hearings scheduled for 16 April, 2 June, and 9 September 1999 were adjourned because of the absence of the petitioner and expert witnesses.
16.  On 22 November 1999 the District Court held the next hearing at which it ordered that a fourth expert opinion be prepared.
17.  Between 23 November 1999 and 8 November 2001 no hearings were held.
18.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 9 November and 5 December 2001 as well as 21 February 2002.
19.  On 24 January and 7 April 2003 the Warsaw District Court held hearings.
20.  The proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
5.  On 21 February 1994 the applicant sued a certain E.K. (“the defendant”) in the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), seeking payment for works which he had carried out for her. On 17 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the payment of court fees.
6.  The first hearing was fixed for 26 January 1995, but was eventually adjourned since the defendant was ill.
7.  On 22 February 1995 the defendant lodged a counterclaim. The trial court held hearings on: 2 March, 18 April, 6 June and 3 October 1995 and on 16 January and 16 April 1996. The court heard evidence from several witnesses and from the defendant.
8.  On 16 April 1996 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 10 May 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. On 24 September 1996 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the expert. The applicant requested the court to take new expert evidence.
9.  During the hearing held on 24 April 1997 the court heard several witnesses. The applicant asked the court to appoint another expert. On 16 June 1997 the applicant applied for an exemption from the costs involved in obtaining an expert opinion. His request was granted on 28 October 1997. On 28 October 1997 another expert submitted his opinion to the trial court.
10.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant asked the court to set a date for a hearing. He stressed that the court had only held two hearings per year. The next hearing was fixed for 9 November 1998, but was adjourned at the parties' request.
11.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant again asked the court to obtain new expert evidence and set a date for a hearing as soon as possible. He submitted that he had been suffering from various ailments and for that reason the court should give priority to his case.
12.  On 8 October 1999 the court, sitting in camera, decided to obtain an opinion from another expert. On 14 December 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
13.  On an unspecified later date the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the length of the proceedings. On 22 October 1999 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that his complaint had been referred to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court.
14.  During the hearing held on 15 March 2000 the court heard an expert and ordered the parties to state their position within two weeks. The applicant submitted his pleadings on 27 March 2000.
15.  On 25 August 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice, maintaining that the court was particularly slow in dealing with the case. In a letter to the applicant of 29 September 2000 the Minister of Justice conceded that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
16.  On 11 October 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 7 November 2000 the court held a viewing of the site. On 8 January 2001 and 12 March 2002 the court held further hearings.
17.  On an unknown later date the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal gave judgments. Upon the applicant's subsequent cassation appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.
6.  The applicant lives in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland.
7.  On 28 December 1993 the applicant sued the Polmozbyt State Enterprise ("the Polmozbyt") in the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking return of payment made for an allegedly defective car.
8.  On 21 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion to be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28 September 1994.
9.  On 18 January 1995, FSO Warszawa, the manufacturer of the car, joined the proceedings as an intervener (interwenient uboczny) on behalf of the defendant.
10.  The court held hearings on 30 June, 9 August and 6 October 1995.
11.  On 19 October 1995 the court ordered that another expert opinion be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 29 November 1995. On 1 March and 29 April 1996 the court held hearings.
12.  On 2 July 1996 the court requested the laboratory of the Łódź Regional Police Headquarters (Wojewódzka Komenda Policji) to prepare an expert report in respect of the defects of the car paint. On 25 July 1996 the laboratory informed the court that it was not competent to prepare the report. On 23 December 1996 the court quashed its order of 2 July 1996. On the same date it also ordered that the report at issue be obtained from the Institute of Forensic Experts (Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych) in Cracow. The applicant could not place his car at the disposal of the Institute because the car registration book had not been renewed due to technical defects of the car.
13.  The court held hearings on 5 December 1997 and on 20 January, 24 February and 22 September 1999.
14.  On 29 September 1999 the Łódź District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. On 16 February 2000 the applicant asked the court to grant him leave to appeal out of time. On 20 June 2000 the court refused his request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gdynia, Poland. She is a historian by profession and used to work as a curator in the Gdynia City Museum.
5.  On 10 September 1996 the applicant brought a private prosecution on charges of libel against S.L. the director of the Gdynia City Museum to the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  On 24 April 1997 the court held a conciliatory hearing. The applicant requested that S.L. retract in the press her defamatory statements. The defendant refused.
7.  The trial began on 27 May 1997 but the applicant failed to appear. The court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had been duly summoned. The court considered that the applicant had been notified about the service of the summons but failed to collect it from the post office. On 19 June 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 2 September 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed that decision and ordered that the District Court proceed with the case.
8.  On 20 July 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the District Court submitting that the length of the proceedings in her case had exceeded any reasonable time limit. On 31 July 1998 the president of the Criminal Division of the District Court informed her that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the presiding judge's illness.
9.  On 25 October 1999 the president of the Criminal Division of the District Court ordered that the case be transferred to another judge.
10.  The next hearing was held on 17 March 2000. On that date upon the court's order, the applicant specified the charges against S.L. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing to consider discontinuation of the proceedings.
11.  On 28 March 2000 the Gdynia District Court discontinued the proceedings, as the offence was time-barred. The court held that the applicant submitted her private prosecution after the time-limit of 3 months from the date on which she had become aware of the identity of the defendant.
9.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.
10.  On 18 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate following a search conducted in his house.
11.  On 2 November 1992 the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court laid charges against the applicant and six other persons for having formed an illegal organisation (“Partiye Rizgariye Kurdistan”: hereinafter “PRK”) whose aim was to undermine the territorial integrity of the State by illegal means. The applicant and his co-accused were also charged with distributing illegal leaflets and carrying identification cards and driving licences belonging to third parties.
12.  The public prosecutor requested the court to convict the applicant and his co-accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with reference to Articles 171 § 1, 350 § 2 and 536 §§ 2 and 3 of the same Code as well as Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713 of 12 April 1991). The public prosecutor relied on the leaflets, the internal regulations of the PRK as well as the latter’s political programme and flag, all of which were seized during the search of the applicant’s and his co-accused’s houses.
13.  On 7 November 1996 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant and four of his co-accused guilty of an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The search of their houses had uncovered the internal regulations of the party whose aim was to establish an independent Kurdish State on the territory of the Turkish State through dissemination of propaganda. The court also noted that the aim of the party was to set up by means of force an independent socialist and united State of Kurdistan within the territories of Iran, Iraq and Syria.
14.  The court sentenced the applicant and four of his co-accused to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and debarred them from public service indefinitely. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 7 October 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 6 November 1995 the applicant, a stoker, brought an action against his employer seeking the invalidation of the termination of his employment.
6.  The Labour Court held hearings on 17 January, 17 April and 19 June 1996. On the latter occasion, it dismissed the applicant’s action.
7.  On appeal, on 26 March 1997 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and discontinued the proceedings, holding that the applicant’s action was time-barred.
8.  In review proceedings, on 10 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court held hearings on 5 May, 30 June and 24 November 1998. On 26 May 1998 the court appointed a graphology expert who submitted his opinion on 24 September 1998. On the applicant’s request, a further expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 15 February 1999. The Labour Court held hearings on 2 September and 4 November 1999, 20 January, 29 February and 6 June 2000. On 7 December 2000 the Labour Court partly admitted the applicant’s claim.
10.  On the parties’ appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 3 April and 22 May 2001. On the latter occasion, the Regional Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision.
11.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant pursued a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
12.  On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision in essence and increased the interest rate to be applied.